Metallurgical steel post design for solar farm foundations and increased guardrail durability

ABSTRACT

A high-grade post or pile system for the foundation of a solar array, which may facilitate the installation of a solar array rack in more corrosive soils. Such a post may also satisfy the need for a foundation able to resist ground forces, in particular the effects of wind on the exterior of the array, and may reduce problems with beam refusal. The post may be used in other applications such as guardrail posts. In contrast to existing posts for solar arrays, the high-grade post may be formed from higher-grade steel.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.15/622,138, filed on Jun. 14, 2017, entitled “METALLURGICAL STEEL POSTDESIGN FOR SOLAR FARM FOUNDATIONS AND INCREASED GUARDRAIL DURABILITY,”the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference.

BACKGROUND

There are an increasing number of solar farms being developed throughoutNorth America and the world. The output of photovoltaic power stationsthe world over has increased progressively over the last decade, withmore and larger solar farms being continuously developed and frequentlysetting new capacity records.

For example, in 2006, the largest photovoltaic solar park was ErlaseeSolar Park in Germany, with a capacity of 11.4 megawatts. Two yearslater, in 2008, the world's largest solar park, Olmedilla PhotovoltaicPark in Spain, had a capacity of 60 megawatts—more than five times thesize. This massive amount of interest in solar energy has continued tothe present day, where the world's largest solar park (Kurnool UltraMega Solar Park in India, set to come fully online sometime in 2017) hasa capacity of 900 megawatts or more.

One obstacle to the growth of solar energy farms, however, has been thesignificant amount of land that they require. Most solar farms requirehundreds if not thousands of acres of land in order to produce enoughpower for a small city; for example, the “Comanche Solar” project inColorado anticipates using over 450,000 panels, spread across 900 acresof land, in order to produce 156 megawatts of electrical energy. Oncegenerated, this electrical energy must then be transmitted to energydemand centers—which are, ideally, in relatively close proximity to thesolar farm itself.

The large amount of land required by solar power generation has meantthat, in the United States, almost all large-scale solar development hasbeen in the Southwest, where many large cities, like San Diego andPhoenix, are relatively close to empty stretches of desert or scrublandthat are ideal for solar development. However, the many other citiesacross the country that are interested in forging ahead with solar powerdo not necessarily have large swathes of cheap, unused land nearby, andhave had to turn to other solutions like rooftop solar.

An increasingly common site for solar development has been“brownfields,” contaminated land or closed landfills that are oftenunusable for other development. These reclaimed brownfields, or“brightfields,” often have the advantage of being close to a citycenter, many are former municipal landfills or former industrial sitesthat have highly corrosive polluted soils. Further, many environmentalconcerns have been raised about building on other potential sites, suchas desert habitat or farmland, and the use of brownfields mitigatesthose concerns. Exelon City Solar, in Chicago, Ill., is one such exampleof a “brightfield;” it is the largest urban solar park in the UnitedStates, and is located on a former industrial site which had previouslysat vacant for 30 years.

The use of these sites has, however, presented a number of problems fordevelopment. For example, in many cases, there may be no groundpenetration allowed at a brownfield site that was formerly a landfill,as doing so could puncture the landfill cap. In other cases, such aswhen the brownfield site was formerly an industrial park, groundpenetration may be allowed but may be undesirable, because the soil atthe site might be polluted and highly corrosive. As solar arrays need tobe coupled to a foundation in order to satisfy design requirements (forexample, the design criteria for solar development generally requiresthat the farm's foundations be capable of withstanding certain “groundforces,” such as high wind speeds, snow loads, and seismic activity, fora minimum of 25 or 30 years), certain workarounds have been created inorder to ensure that the solar farm's foundations can be installed aseasily and cheaply as possible on sites where there cannot be groundpenetration or where the site has extremely corrosive soil.

One common design is a “ballasted foundation,” used when there is notany ground penetration allowed. In such a foundation, the rack of thesolar array is attached to a man-made above-ground foundation, typicallya structure of heavy concrete blocks. Typically, such a system has twovertical posts connected to a single concrete block of approximately 2ft by 2 ft by 8 ft. These systems can be very expensive and aretypically not suitable or not recommended for smaller installations.

A more common design for solar farm foundations is the ground-mountedsystem. This design relies on ground penetration using any of a varietyof penetrators. For example, these can include large hemisphericalscrews, helical piles, C-channel posts, or (most commonly) driven-steelI-beams. These I-beams are most commonly within a range of smaller W6×7beams to larger W6×25 beams (using the ASTM A6 standard for I-beams,where the first number indicates depth in inches, and the second numberindicates weight in lb/ft).

A major reason that the I-beams used for solar arrays fall within thisrange is that guardrail posts also fall within this range. When thefirst large-scale solar farms were being designed, engineers made use ofthe standard guardrail post as the basis for driven piles. This allowedexisting equipment used for driving guardrails (such as spiral-type orhydraulic-type pile drivers intended for driving guardrails) to be usedin this application as well. This remains the most common method in usetoday.

As such, where possible, solar piles are standard guardrail posts. Theseare I-beams having a size of W6×8.5 or W6×9 (8.5 lbs/9 lbs per linearfoot respectfully), which have been hot dip galvanized per ASTM A123,and which have a steel KSI grade of 50. However, several factors mightrequire a different section type to be used. In particular, thesefactors might include the ground forces that are applicable to thesite's location, the density of the soil that the beams will be driveninto, and the other properties of the soil.

For example, the selection of a section type used for a foundationintended to resist ground forces may depend on what ground forces therack and panel of the solar array are expected to experience. This mayvary from location to location or even from one part of the array toanother. For example, typically the exterior of the array willexperience greater wind forces. Thus, posts that are larger in size maybe selected for the exterior of the array. The interior of the arraywill typically have less wind load requirements, and the posts may thusbe smaller in size.

The post may also be varied based on the density of the soil that thebeams are intended to be driven into. Ground-mounted systems can be usedin any of a variety of lands or soils, such as bedrock, clay, orcobblestone. Soils may be loose, sand-like, and expansive, or may bedense, firm, and hard-packed. Soils may also be highly rocky orotherwise heterogeneous, and may have, for example, bits of ledge thatmight cause refusals of driven piles. This is in keeping with thevariety of potential sites for solar arrays, including repurposed farmfields, empty lots, commercial parking lots, landfills, and simple openspaces with minimal shading, each of which may have been originallybuilt on a different type of soil, and some of which may introducedebris or other obstacles. Typically, a subsurface investigation must beconducted in order to determine the attributes of the soil in order fora proper beam size to be selected. Generally, when the soil is veryrocky, or when driven piles may otherwise be subject to refusal, using athicker section type than was required by design can often be anothersolution.

The post may also be varied based on the corrosivity of the soil inquestion. For example, former agricultural lands may havehighly-concentrated deposits of corrosive fertilizer. Coastal lands mayhave high concentrations of corrosive salts, and may have continuous wetand dry cycles. Reclaimed industrial lands or other brownfields may havehighly corrosive soils due to decades of industrial pollution.

When an analysis of the soil indicates that corrosive elements arepresent (which is very common), and are present to such a degree thatthey may adversely affect the structural integrity of the steel postsections (based on the predicted ground force data) and the ability ofthe steel post sections to last for its intended lifetime (typically 25years), there are two common solutions that may be used either alone orin combination.

First, in order to resist corrosion, an additional quantity ofsacrificial anode may be applied to ensure that the sacrificial anodelasts for a longer period of time. The steel post may be hot dipgalvanized (HDG) per ASTM A123, which specifies a minimum coating ofzinc to be applied as specified per the thickness of the steel plate.ASTM A123 specifies a HDG minimum zinc coating of 3.9 mils per/thicknessof steel plate. (A thicker coating than the minimum can also sometimesbe applied.)

Second, in order to provide additional sacrificial material, a thickersection type may be used than was initially required by design. This mayprovide additional sacrificial steel that may thus allow the steel postto meet or exceed its required longevity as prescribed by its designlife.

Most commonly, the solution is to HDG the post. However, it is notuncommon to increase the size of the post by increasing the sectiontype, in addition to and in conjunction with HDG, to thus provideredundant sacrificial material after the HDG has been exhausted.

SUMMARY

An alternative post or pile system for the foundation of a solar arraymay be disclosed. According to an exemplary embodiment, such a post mayfacilitate the installation of a solar array rack in more corrosivesoils. Such a post may also satisfy the need for a foundation able toresist ground forces, in particular the effects of wind on the exteriorof the array, and may reduce problems with beam refusal. In an exemplaryembodiment, the post may be used in other applications; for example, inan exemplary embodiment, it may be desirable to use the post as aguardrail post, similar to how guardrail posts were originally used asposts for the foundations of solar arrays.

Existing I-beam posts used in the embedded foundations of solar farmsare grade 50; that is, they are constructed from a steel that has anultimate tensile strength of 50 ksi. However, in an exemplaryembodiment, an alternative post may be substituted that has a highergrade, such as grade 60 or higher. For example, in an exemplaryembodiment, grade 80 may be used.

According to an exemplary embodiment, a pile used as a supporting postfor a guardrail or a mounting rack of a solar array may be described.The pile may include a columnar pile body having an I-shaped crosssection. The columnar pile body may be constructed from a grade 60 orgrade 80 steel, or another such steel, as desired. As such, the columnarpile body may have an ultimate tensile strength of at least 60 ksi.

According to an exemplary embodiment, the columnar pile body may beconstructed so as to have an ASTM grade of HIGH STRENGTH ASTM A-656 Gr.80, ASTM A-656 Gr. 80, or ASTM A-514 PLATE 100 ksi. This may replace thecurrent material, which is produced at a grade having an ASTM referenceof HIGH STRENGTH ASTM A-572 Gr. 50. According to an exemplaryembodiment, the columnar pile body may be a proprietary beam such as aBANTAM BEAM. The columnar pile body may be galvanized using a hot dipgalvanic coating, or may otherwise be coated in anode, as may bedesired. Alternatively, the columnar pile body may be protected byanother method, such as via the application of a protective epoxycoating or a protective zinc-rich epoxy/urethane coating to the surfaceof the columnar pile body. Alternatively, no protection may be applied,and the columnar pile body may include a sufficient amount ofsacrificial material that no protection may be necessary. Otherconfigurations of the columnar pile body may also be understood.

According to an exemplary embodiment, the pile may use a standardguardrail sizing, such as W6×8.5 or W6×9, which may allow the pile to bedriven using a standard guardrail post driver, if desired.

In an exemplary embodiment, a solar array may have a plurality of suchpiles supporting it. In an exemplary embodiment, the solar array mayhave different piles on the outside and inside of the solar array, withthe piles on the outside of the solar array being stronger than thepiles on the inside of the solar array.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

Advantages of embodiments of the present invention will be apparent fromthe following detailed description of the exemplary embodiments thereof,which description should be considered in conjunction with theaccompanying drawings in which like numerals indicate like elements, inwhich:

FIG. 1 is an exemplary embodiment of a BANTAM BEAM.

FIG. 2 is an exemplary embodiment of a solar array.

FIG. 3 is an exemplary embodiment of a solar array incorporating aplurality of high-grade beams.

FIG. 4 is an exemplary embodiment of a guardrail.

FIG. 5A is an exemplary embodiment of a method of installing a solararray.

FIG. 5B is an exemplary embodiment of a method of replacing a solarpanel module.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Aspects of the invention are disclosed in the following description andrelated drawings directed to specific embodiments of the invention.Alternate embodiments may be devised without departing from the spiritor the scope of the invention. Additionally, well-known elements ofexemplary embodiments of the invention will not be described in detailor will be omitted so as not to obscure the relevant details of theinvention. Further, to facilitate an understanding of the descriptiondiscussion of several terms used herein follows.

As used herein, the word “exemplary” means “serving as an example,instance or illustration.” The embodiments described herein are notlimiting, but rather are exemplary only. It should be understood thatthe described embodiments are not necessarily to be construed aspreferred or advantageous over other embodiments. Moreover, the terms“embodiments of the invention”, “embodiments” or “invention” do notrequire that all embodiments of the invention include the discussedfeature, advantage or mode of operation.

Further, several terms of art are explicitly defined herein for ease ofreference. In particular, the “ultimate tensile strength” of a materialis defined as the maximum stress a material withstands when subjected toan applied load. Dividing the load at failure by the original crosssectional area determines the value. The “yield strength” of a materialis defined as the point at which the material exceeds the elastic limitand will not return to its original shape or length if the stress isremoved. This value is determined by evaluating a stress-strain diagramproduced during a tensile test.

According to an exemplary embodiment, and referring generally to theFigures, various exemplary implementations of a post for use in afoundation of a solar array may be disclosed.

Referring generally to the Figures, various exemplary embodiments ofposts that may be used in the foundations of solar arrays may bedisclosed. It is again noted that the existing I-beam posts used in theembedded foundations of solar farms are grade 50, which means that theyare constructed from a steel that has an ultimate tensile strength of 50ksi. However, according to an exemplary embodiment, posts for theembedded foundations of solar farms may be constructed from a steelhaving a higher ultimate tensile strength, such as 60 ksi or 80 ksi, orlower or higher as may be desired.

It is noted that, in virtually all other applications in which ahigh-tensile steel alloy is used, the overriding reason for doing so wasto reduce the overall weight of the structure. High-tensile steel alloystend to have approximately the same density as lower-tensile-strengthsteel alloys, meaning that a component constructed from the high-tensilesteel alloy can be lighter while providing the same strength. This meansthat a beam constructed from high-tensile steel alloy can be used in anapplication where the high strength-to-weight ratio of the beam is abenefit; for example, such beams are often used in skyscrapers, whereinthe large steel columns and horizontal I-beams used to construct theskyscraper need to be strong enough to support the weight of the storiesabove them, and light enough to lessen the stress on the stories below.Likewise, such beams may be used in applications where the beams wouldhave to be transmitted by road or by another method where weight is aconcern (such as air transport); for example, joists and framework forpre-fabricated homes generally requires the use of high-tensile steel,so that the joists and framework remain light enough to be transportedby semi-tractor-trailer across highways and roads, and are strong enoughto be lifted by crane and set on their final foundation. However,high-tensile steel alloys are more expensive than standard 50 ksi steel(if it were otherwise, the higher-tensile steel alloy would likelybecome the new standard) and as such historically have not seen use inapplications in which the strength-to-weight ratio of the steelcomponent is not a concern.

Turning now to exemplary FIG. 1, FIG. 1 displays an exemplary embodimentof a BANTAM BEAM 100. The BANTAM BEAM, manufactured by GerdauCorporation, is a beam intended for use in the frames of manufacturedhomes and recreational vehicles, as well as in the cross-members oftractor-trailer beds, and in certain other applications like the purlinsof roofs. The beam 100 is advertised as providing an exceptionallow-weight-per-foot hot-rolled solution.

Generally, such beams 100 have a size of approximately 4 lbs per linearfoot, and have a tensile strength of approximately 80 ksi. These beams100 are used in applications wherein a structural member needs to beboth strong and light. For example, BANTAM BEAMs 100 may be used as abed support for a semi-trailer. Such trailers may not have a front axle,and as such may be pulled by a semi-tractor as a tractor-trailer unit.It is necessary for this bed support to be strong, in order to ensurethat the trailer has a bed floor strong enough to hold a desiredquantity of weight (often 50,000 lbs) so that the bed can support thefreight that the semi-tractor may be hauling. It is also necessary forthis bed support to be light, in order to allow as much freight aspossible to be hauled before the tractor-trailer is loaded to capacity(i.e. while the trailer is still light enough not to exceed theDepartment of Transportation's limits on gross vehicle weight/grossvehicle mass (GVW/GVM).)

The BANTAM BEAM 100 essentially serves as a representative example ofhigh-tensile-strength beams that serves to exemplify the most commondesign philosophies for the use of high-tensile-strength beams. Inparticular, the BANTAM BEAM 100 has been constructed to have adiminutive size and surface area, in order to save weight. This,however, means that the BANTAM BEAM 100, along with otherhigh-tensile-strength beams that have been designed similarly, isunsuitable for use in a solar farm foundation.

Specifically, such a beam is likely unsuitable for a solar farmfoundation because the beam lacks sufficient surface area that is neededto prevent uplift of the beam, and thus of the solar array, in responseto a ground force such as wind.

To provide some background, the size of a driven pile that is necessaryin order to counter uplift is determined based on a determination of theultimate bearing capacity. The ultimate bearing capacity may be any ofthree values, describing forces which may cause a pile to fail. First,the ultimate bearing capacity may be the maximum load of the pileQ_(max), at which further penetration begins occurring (i.e. the pile isdriven further into the ground) without an increase in the size of theload. Second, in cases where Q_(max) is not clear, the ultimate bearingcapacity may be a load at which a settlement of the pile by a distanceof 0.1 times the length of the diameter of the pile occurs. (This meansthat, for large-diameter piles, settlement can be noticeable, whichmeans that a sizeable factor of safety must generally be applied to thecalculation of the ultimate bearing capacity in order to ensure that thepile does not settle noticeably.)

Third, the ultimate bearing capacity may be a calculated value Q_(f),given by the sum of the end-bearing and the shaft resistances. It isnoted that a pile loaded axially will carry the load partly by shearstresses, t_(s), generated along the shaft of the pile and partly bynormal stresses, q_(b), generated at the base. As such, the ultimatecapacity Q_(f) of a pile is equal to the base capacity plus the skinfriction acting on the shaft. This may be described by the relationQ_(f)=Q_(b)+Q_(s)=A_(b)·q_(b)+å(A_(s)·t_(s)), wherein Q_(f) is theultimate capacity of the pile, Q_(b) is the load on the pile due tonormal stresses q_(b) generated at the base of the pile (where A_(b) isthe area of the base), and Q_(s) is the load on the pile due to shearstresses t_(s) generated along the shaft of the pile (where A_(s) is thesurface area of the shaft within a soil layer, and å is the coefficientof friction).

As such, a smaller beam such as a BANTAM BEAM 100 is not likely to beable to prevent uplift. Likewise, a solar farm does not any structuralrequirements limiting the overall weight of the structure, and inparticular does not have a structural requirement limiting the weight ofthe foundation. As such, neither the specifications of ahigh-tensile-strength beam such as the BANTAM BEAM 100, nor the designrequirements of the solar array, would initially suggest the use of ahigh-tensile-strength beam in the foundation of the solar array.

Turning next to exemplary FIG. 2, FIG. 2 displays an exemplaryembodiment of a solar array 200 having an in-ground foundation, andparticularly a solar array 200 that makes use of a helical screw pile202 foundation. The helical screw pile 202 foundation may support a rack204 and a panel 206 assembly. Specifically, the helical screw pile 202foundation may be coupled to the rack 204 and may extend downward intothe soil for a given distance. In other exemplary embodiments of a solararray 200 having an in-ground foundation, another type of foundation maybe used in place of a helical screw pile 202 foundation, such as, asdiscussed previously, driven-steel I-beams.

According to an exemplary embodiment, the foundation 202 of a solararray 200 may function for several purposes. For example, as discussed,the foundation 202 may be intended to resist ground forces that may becaused by wind and snow loads, as well as (in some cases) seismicactivity. The foundation 202 may also have a need for some kind ofcorrosion protection solution, due to the embedment of the foundation,in order to ensure compliance with the design life of the foundation202, commonly between 25 and 30 years.

Now referring generally to the figures, according to an exemplaryembodiment, one or more beams constructed from a higher grade of steelthan grade 50 may be used instead of or in addition to a helical screwpile or driven steel I-beam foundation. Such beams may be referred togenerally as “high-grade beams.” For example, according to an exemplaryembodiment, a grade 80 beam may be used. In some exemplary embodiments,high-grade beams may be of mixed levels of strength; for example,according to an exemplary embodiment, grade 80 beams may be used forsome elements of a foundation (such as the outer supports for a rack204) and grade 60 beams may be used for other elements of a foundation(such as the inner supports for a rack 204). In some embodiments, one ormore of the beams used may be a proprietary beam, such as a BANTAM BEAM;such beams may be used instead of or in addition to other beams, ifdesired.

According to an exemplary embodiment, one or more high-grade beams maybe prepared in a section size such as is currently used in solar farmconstruction. For example, according to an exemplary embodiment, one ormore high-grade beams may be created in a standard guardrail post size(for example, a W6×8.5 or W6×9 size) so that existing techniques ofdriving the foundation posts of solar arrays, such as the use of aguardrail pile driver, may be used.

Such beams may offer superior performance in corrosive soils. Forexample, if a given section type is constructed based on grade 50 steel,but built using a higher steel grade, a percentage increase instructural life may be observed based on the percentage increase intensile strength. For example, if a part is designed to grade 50, butgrade 60 is instead used, the tensile strength will be increased byapproximately 20%. The structural life of the post can thus be expectedto similarly increase by approximately 20%. If the design of the post isto grade 50, but grade 80 is instead used, the increase in thestructural life of the post will be approximately 60%.

A corrosion rate may generally be expressed in mils (i.e. thousandths ofinches) per year, or in millimeters per year. In order to calculate thecorrosion rate from metal loss, the following equation can be used:mm/y=87.6×(W/DAT), where W is equal to the weight loss in milligrams, Dis equal to the metal density in g/cm³, A is equal to the area of samplein cm², and T is equal to the time of exposure of the metal sample inhours. To convert corrosion rate between mils per year and millimetersper year (mm/y), the relation 1 mpy=0.0254 mm/y=25.4 microm/y can beused.

Because the rate at which corrosion occurs is based on the density andarea of the sample rather than on its strength or other properties, itmay be noted that, if a solar farm's foundation is designed based on theutilization of a steel grade of 50 ksi, but a higher steel grade issubstituted for the 50 ksi steel in actual use, the foundation may seean increase in longevity proportional to the increase in strength. Forexample, if a steel that is 20% stronger (60 ksi) is used, the steelwill have 20% more longevity in its structural life of use.(Alternatively, the steel beam section size could be reduced by up to20% without a decrease in longevity, making it possible to both reducethe size of the steel beam and its longevity if there is reason to doso.) A higher-grade steel, such as grade 80 steel, may result in anincrease of 60% more longevity to its structural life of use.

Such beams may also offer superior performance in other soils, such asrocky soils. For example, a high-grade beam, which may be constructedfrom a grade 80 steel instead of a grade 50 steel, may be used topositive effect in a rocky soil having a composition indicating a highlikelihood of refusal with a smaller section. The structure of thehigh-grade beam may ensure that there is less likelihood of the beamundergoing material distortion (that is, there is less chance of thebeam bending or breaking) while being driven, reducing the likelihood ofan adverse effect of refusal. This ensures that solar projects involvingin-ground foundations are more feasible in locations that would havehigh refusal rates, such as in locations with soils having large amountsof rock in the embedment.

The use of a high-grade beam may have beneficial financial results ascompared to the in-ground beams currently used. In particular, the useof a high-tensile I-beam in an in-ground foundation application may usea reduced amount of steel as compared to an existing I-beam that hasbeen sized to have an approximately similar useful life. This mayfurther reduce the cost of using renewables, in particular solar, andmake them more competitive with respect to the grid, further promotingtheir use and making them more economical to use in a wider variety ofareas.

By way of example, the costs of making use of steel I-beam posts havingdifferent compositions, treatments, or strengths may be compared.

In an exemplary embodiment, hot-dip galvanization may be contemplated asa treatment for a steel I-beam post. It may be understood that,according to an exemplary embodiment, the cost to hot-dip galvanize apost may be based on the weight of the steel, rather than on itsstrength. For example, in an exemplary embodiment, it may costapproximately 150 per lb to hot-dip galvanize steel, whether that steelis 50 ksi, 60 ksi, 80 ksi, 100 ksi, or another strength, such as may bedesired. (However, in some exemplary embodiments, a very high strengthsteel may be used, and hot-dip galvanization may risk hydrogenembrittlement of the steel; in such applications, a galvanization methodother than hot-dip galvanization, such as, for example,electrogalvanizing, may be contemplated. Other galvanization methods mayalso be contemplated in any other applications, such as may be desired.)

Based on a price point of approximately 150 per lb to hot-dip galvanizesteel, the cost of “black” non-coated 50 ksi steel may be understood tobe approximately 450 per lb. The cost of galvanized 50 ksi steel may,thus, be understood to be approximately 600 per lb. Likewise, the costof“black” non-coated 80 ksi steel may be understood to be approximately470 per lb, and the cost of galvanized 80 ksi steel may, thus, beunderstood to be approximately 620 per lb.

This means that, if an exemplary embodiment of a solar array designcalls for a W6×8.5×12′ grade 50 steel post foundation, several optionsare available. A first option may be to construct the solar array basedon current practices, and use, as the steel post, a W6×8.5×12′ 50 ksiASTM A123 galvanized beam, costing approximately $0.60/lb. This beamwould be expected to have a cost of approximately $61.20. A secondoption may be to construct the solar array so that the steel postincludes an additional amount of sacrificial steel; for example, aW6×10.5×12′ post constructed from 50 ksi (black, i.e. ungalvanized)material may be used, which may cost approximately $0.45/lb. The beamwould be expected to have a cost of approximately $56.70.

A third option may be to construct the solar array so that the steelpost is constructed from higher-strength steel (and may still includesome quantity of sacrificial steel, as desired). For example, accordingto an exemplary embodiment, a W6×9×12″ 80 ksi (black) beam may be used,which may cost approximately $0.47/lb. The beam would be expected tohave a cost of approximately $50.76. Finally, in a fourth option, thesolar array may be constructed so that the steel post is constructedfrom higher-strength galvanized steel; for example, according to anexemplary embodiment, a W6×7×12′ 80 ksi ASTM A123 beam (i.e. agalvanized beam) may be used, which may cost approximately $0.62/lbs.The beam would be expected to have a cost of approximately $52.08.

It is noted that only option 1, specifically the use of 50 ksi beamscreated according to ASTM A123, appears to be in common use. While inrare instances solar array projects appear to have been built usingungalvanized 50 ksi steel as per option 2—for example, this appears tohave been done in some desert solar array projects where galvaniccorrosion is less of a concern—the use of ungalvanized steel isextremely rare, and is not considered as a viable option by the majorityof builders for projects outside of those locations. Options 3 and 4,which each embody an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, eachresult in a substantial cost savings.

It may be understood that other benefits other than cost savings may beevident from one option or the other. For example, a galvanized postsuch as discussed in Option 4 may be regarded as desirable for thereasons that the galvanized post is rust resistant, cleaner looking, andconsistent with the look of the rest of the solar array. It may also beunderstood that a galvanized post constructed from high-strength steelmay have a useful life that is considerably longer than is typicallyrequired by design, and often considerably longer than the useful lifeof the solar panel or solar module. As such, the use of such agalvanized post may allow for the possibility of successive generationsof modules, meaning that the long-term cost of the galvanized post maybe cheaper if the modules are intended to be replaced after they haveworn out. Meanwhile, a “black” steel post such as discussed in Option 3may outlast the required design life (which may be, for example, theanticipated design life of the solar module) but may not have a longenough life to allow for successive generations of modules to be usedwith the “black” steel post. The “black” steel post may also be moresusceptible to rust, which may be undesirable in certain applications;for example, if the solar array is intended to be in a high-trafficarea, such as a public park, it may be unaesthetic to have visible ruston any parts of the surface of the solar array.

By way of further example, the costs of construction of a 1 MW solarproject built according to current standards (ASTM A123) and a 1 MWsolar project built according to an exemplary embodiment set forthherein may be compared.

In a first example, a 1 MW solar project may be constructed according tocurrent standards. As per ASTM standard A123, the beams used in thefoundation may be constructed from 50 ksi galvanized steel. The projectmay thus be designed with (500) W6×9×12′ steel grade 50 I-beams per thestructural and ground force load requirements.

Calculating the costs per post and the total cost, the cost per post maybe calculated at approximately $0.60 per lb of galvanized steel*108 lbs(W6×9×12′)=$64.80/post. This yields a total cost of $64.80/post*(500)posts=$32,400 (steel material cost).

In a second example, a 1 MW solar project having the same designrequirements may be constructed according to an exemplary embodiment setforth herein. Such a project may make use of (500) W6×7×12′ steel grade80 I-beams, having a weight of 84 lbs. Calculating the costs per postand the total cost, the cost per post may be calculated at approximately$0.62/lbs (based on an increased per/lbs cost for higherKSI)=$52.08/post. This yields a total cost of $52.08/post×(500)posts=$26,040 (steel material cost). (It is noted that this is based onsome level of estimation, as there appears to be no current productionor no significant current production of high tensile W6 wide flangebeams of this size, such as W6×7 (or ×8.5, ×9, ×12, ×15, ×20, ×25, andso forth). Such estimates are made based on the estimated cost of thesteel.)

Comparing example 2 to example 1, it may be observed that example 2results in a monetary savings of $6,360. Further, designing the solarproject as set forth in Example 2 results in an increase in thestructural longevity of the steel's design by 30% and a material savingsof 12,000 lbs of steel.

Given the large-scale expansion of solar generation plants throughoutthe United States and the world, this is a significant savings. Forexample, there are currently over 5 gigawatts (5,000 mw) inpre-construction throughout the US. If similar cost and material savingsto those described in this example could be achieved, the resultingsavings would be 60 million lbs of unneeded steel to be used for otherimportant uses, and $36 million saved for other renewable projects.

In some exemplary embodiments, costs or material savings from thereplacement of existing posts with high-tensile strength I-beam postsmay vary. For example, in some exemplary applications, existing practicemay be to make use of more complex piles such as hemispherical screws orhelical piles in order to penetrate tougher ground, and it may bepossible to replace these piles with high-tensile-strength I-beam pilesat a substantial cost savings.

In other cases, C-channel posts or other roll-formed beams may be usedinstead of I-beams, due to the lower cost typically associated withC-channel posts. Such posts may be more resistant to transverse bendingbut may be more susceptible to buckling than I-beams havingapproximately equal sectional areas, meaning that it may be preferableto use them based on some anticipated loads and may be less preferableto use them based on other anticipated loads. The replacement of theC-channel posts with high-tensile I-beams may thus yield less of asavings in many cases. However, C-channel posts may have a shorteruseful life even if galvanized; in many cases, continuous sheetgalvanizing may be used in order to protect C-channel posts, which maybe more limited and ill-suited to high-corrosion applications thanstandard hot-dip galvanization methods. This may mean that it becomeseven more favorable to use a high-tensile I-beam in the long run.

It may also be contemplated to construct a different type of post, otherthan an I-beam-type post, from a high strength steel. For example, in anexemplary embodiment, a C-channel post, or another alternative piledesign, could be constructed from a higher-tensile-strength steel, ifdesired.

Further refinements may be made in order to further reduce costs. Forexample, at the edge of an individual solar array, or at the edge of asolar farm, the wind load is more intense than on piles nearer thecenter of the solar array or nearer the center of the solar farm. Assuch, heavier section type posts are often used, particularly at theedges of solar farms. This is due to several factors, but primarily theincreased uplift caused by wind, which may exert a force on the solararray tending to pull the solar array out of the ground. This typicallyrequires that the posts nearer the edges of the solar array or near theedges of the solar farm be thickened, with more embedded post surfacearea, in order to ensure that additional skin friction from the postcounters the higher uplift force on the array that is created by wind.

At present, a thicker pile must be used in order to ensure that the pilehas adequate surface area. A longer pile of the same section type as isused in the interior of the array cannot be used, because a longer pileconstructed from the same material type will tend to experience higheramounts of head deflection when a lateral force is applied parallel tothe surface of the ground and perpendicular to the length of the pile.(Such a force may often be applied due to wind, or due to some otherground force.) In general, the equation

${{E_{p}I_{p}\frac{d^{4}y}{{dx}^{4}}} + {P_{x}\frac{d^{2}y}{{dx}^{2}}} + {E_{py}y} - W} = 0$

may hold for a laterally loaded pile, wherein E_(p) I_(p) is the bendingstiffness of the pile, P_(x) is the axial load on the pile head, y isthe lateral deflection of the pile, E_(py) is the soil reaction modulus(based on an experimentally determined p-y curve for the soil), and W isthe distributed load down some length of the pile. Likewise, theequation

${{E_{p}I_{p}\frac{d^{3}y}{{dx}^{3}}} + {P_{x}\frac{dy}{dx}}} = V$

gives V, the shear in the pile, and the equation

${E_{p}I_{p}\frac{d^{2}y}{{dx}^{2}}} = M$

gives M, the bending moment experienced by the pile.

Using a longer pile typically means that the maximum bending moment thatthe pile experiences will be greater in magnitude, enhancing the risk offailure of the pile. (A general rule of thumb in pile design is that, ifthe pile is designed with too short a length, there is a greater riskthat the soil will fail, while if the pile is designed with too great alength, there is a greater risk that the pile will fail.) The increasedthickness of the exterior pile sometimes means that it is incompatiblewith the driver that is used to drive the interior pile, or means thatthe driver used to drive the interior pile must be more complex in orderto drive both sizes of pile.

The designs of the exterior of the array may thus be benefited by theuse of a high-tensile I-beam. In an exemplary embodiment, an exteriorpile may be designed such that it is the same thickness as the interiorpiles, but is longer than the interior piles, which may be used toincrease the embedded surface area of the exterior pile. This may inturn increase the total skin friction that is being applied to the pileto prevent uplift. This may accomplish the same task as the thickerbeams currently in use, with the added benefit that the longer beamhaving the same cross-sectional size as the interior piles may be drivenusing the same driver as the interior piles. The downside of using alonger beam, namely the fact that the beam may be subject to increasedlevels of stress due to the maximum bending moment on the beam beinghigher, may be mitigated by the use of a higher-grade steel.

In some exemplary embodiments, however, an exterior pile may make use ofa high-tensile beam than is thicker than the beams used for the interiorpiles. In some exemplary embodiments, this may be a beam that is onlyslightly thicker than the beams used for the interior piles, while inother exemplary embodiments the beam used for the exterior piles may bethicker than the beams used for the interior piles by approximately thesame margin as is used in present solar arrays that make use of pilesconstructed from grade 50 steel. In such embodiments, the length of theexterior pile may also vary; for example, the exterior pile may be thesame length as the interior piles, may be both thicker and longer thanthe interior piles (and may, for example, be longer than the interiorpiles to a lesser extent than would be the case if the exterior pile wasconstructed to have the same thickness as the interior piles), or may beany other length as may be desired.

This may again result in cost savings that may be demonstrated throughexample. In example 3, according to an exemplary embodiment, a givensolar farm project may be constructed using 5,000 posts, with 20 percentof these posts being exterior posts. This means that 4000 of these postswould be interior posts, and 1000 of these posts would be exteriorposts.

In a first case, a lower-grade steel may be used as per currentconvention. The interior posts may have sizes of W6×8.5×12′ and may beconstructed from grade 50 steel (50 ksi). Each post may thus have aweight of 102 lbs. With 4,000 of these posts being necessary, and aprice point of $0.60/lbs being used for grade 50 steel, the total costof the interior posts will be 102 lbs*4,000=408,000 lbs, which whenmultiplied by $0.60/lbs yields a total cost of $244,800 for the interiorposts.

The exterior posts may have a higher thickness, and may thus have a sizeof W6×12×12′. They may likewise be constructed from grade 50 steel (50ksi). Each post may in this case have a weight of 144 lbs. With 1,000 ofthese posts being necessary, and a price point of $0.60/lbs being usedfor grade 50 steel, the total cost of the interior posts will be 144lbs*1,000=144,000 lbs, which when multiplied by $0.60/lbs yields a totalcost of $86,400 for the exterior posts. This means that, for a solarfarm project constructed according to conventional designs, the totalcost of the posts (both interior and exterior) may be $331,200.

In a second case, however, a higher-grade steel may be used. Theinterior posts may be decreased in cross-sectional size due to the useof the higher-grade steel. As such, the interior posts may have sizes ofW6×7×12′ and may be constructed from grade 80 steel (80 ksi). Each postmay thus have a weight of 84 lbs. With 4,000 of these posts beingnecessary, and a price point of $0.62/lbs being used for grade 80 steel,the total cost of the interior posts will be 84 lbs*4,000=336,000 lbs,which when multiplied by $0.62/lbs yields a total cost of $208,320 forthe interior posts.

The exterior posts may have a higher thickness and higher length, asdiscussed above; specifically, the exterior posts may have a decreasedsection size due to the higher ksi steel used, and may have an increasedlength in order to provide more surface area. The exterior posts maythus have a size of W6×8.5×14′. They may likewise be constructed fromgrade 80 steel (80 ksi). Each post may in this case have a weight of 119lbs. With 1,000 of these posts being necessary, and a price point of$0.62/lbs being used for grade 80 steel, the total cost of the interiorposts will be 119 lbs*1,000=119,000 lbs, which when multiplied by$0.62/lbs yields a total cost of $73,700 for the exterior posts. Thismeans that, for a solar farm project constructed according toconventional designs, the total cost of the posts (both interior andexterior) may be $282,100.

This means that, comparing case 2 to case 1, there is a substantialsavings in both the cost of the steel used and in the quantity of steelused. Constructing the solar farm according to case 2, i.e. with the useof a grade 80 steel instead of a grade 50 steel and with the piles beingconstructed with the dimensions used in the example, yields a costsavings of $49,100 and a material savings of 97,000 lbs.

Other cost-saving measures may also be contemplated. For example,present solar array designs often arrange foundation piles in rows, witha certain number of piles being provided per row. 11 piles per row iscommon. With the use of a high-tensile or ultra-high-tensile steel, thenumber of piles per row can be reduced; for example, instead of 11 pilesper row, only 7 piles per row could be used, further saving material. Insome embodiments, the piles per row could be varied and the thicknessand/or length of each pile could also be varied, as may be desired.

As such, a solar array having a foundation constructed from a high orultra-high-strength steel may offer significant benefits and havesignificant industrial applicability. Such applications have not beenpreviously considered for solar arrays, because the overall weight ofthe structure has not been a fundamental design requirement, meaningthat there has been no obvious reason to use a more expensive materialhaving a high strength-to-weight ratio. In this application, thehigh-strength or ultra-high-strength steel may offer improvements aboveand beyond what would be predicted, namely increased longevity of thestructure with regards to corrosion.

Further, as noted, there does not appear to be current production of, orsignificant current production of, high tensile W6 wide flange beams ofthe desired size, such as W6×7 or other such sizes. Thus, there islikewise no obvious reason to design a structure to make use of acomponent that does not yet exist and is not yet produced. However,according to exemplary embodiments of the present application, theincorporation of such beams into the foundations of solar arrays couldcreate a significant enough demand for high-tensile W6 wide flange beamsthat high-tensile W6 wide flange beams could be used for otherapplications (such as, for example, guardrail posts), ensuring that theconstruction of solar arrays having foundations constructed from a highor ultra-high-strength steel may have even greater industrialapplicability.

According to an exemplary embodiment, a high-grade beam such as isdescribed herein may be used in other applications for a solar arrayrather than solely in an in-ground foundation. For example, according toan exemplary embodiment, a high-grade beam may be used as part of aballasted foundation, and may be used to connect the solar array to aconcrete block. This may improve the ability of the ballasted foundationto survive ground effects, such as wind or weather, and may thus promotea longer useful life for ballasted foundations.

In an exemplary embodiment, a high-grade beam such as is described heremay be used as a guardrail post instead of in a solar array. Forexample, a grade 80 guardrail post that has been formed from ahigh-grade beam may have an increased structural life, and may, forexample, have an increased length of time before replacement ofapproximately 60%. This would reduce the cost of guardrail maintenance,and would greatly reduce the burden on taxpayers for continuedinfrastructure maintenance.

Referring now to FIG. 3, an exemplary embodiment of a solar array 300which incorporates one or more high-grade beams 304, 308 as part of itsstructure may be disclosed. According to an exemplary embodiment, therack portion 310 of a solar array 300 may be supported by one or morehigh-grade beams 304, 308, which may be sunk into the ground 306. Therack portion 310 of a solar array 300 may support one or more solarpanels 312.

In an exemplary embodiment, the ends 302 of the high-grade beams 304,308 may be any shape. For example, in an exemplary embodiment, the ends302 may be flat or may be pointed for greater penetration. In anotherexemplary embodiment, the ends 302 may be expandable or may otherwisehave a width greater than that of the high-grade beams 304, 308 in orderto help prevent shifting or removal of the high-grade beams 304, 308.

In an exemplary embodiment, the high-grade beams 304, 308 may havemultiple parts, such as an above-ground beam 308 and a below-ground beam304. Above-ground beam 308 and below-ground beam 304 may be coupled toone another and may have similar or different attributes, as may bedesired. In another exemplary embodiment, the high-grade beams 304, 308may be single parts but may have different attributes for anabove-ground portion 308 and a below-ground portion 304. For example,according to an exemplary embodiment, the below-ground portion 304 maybe roughened before hot dip coating, may be subject to hot dip coatingin a different anode preparation, may have anode material added byanother technique than hot-dip coating, or may otherwise have a thickeranode layer than the above-ground portion, 308, if desired.Alternatively, it may be desired to have the above-ground portion 308have a thicker anode layer, if desired.

Turning now to exemplary FIG. 4, FIG. 4 displays an exemplary embodimentof a guardrail assembly 400. According to an exemplary embodiment, aguardrail assembly 400 may be formed on a guardrail post 402, which maybe sunk into the ground 404. Guardrail post 402 may then be coupled to aguardrail 408 by a plurality of connectors 406.

According to an exemplary embodiment, a high-grade beam may be used as aguardrail post 402. According to an exemplary embodiment, the high-gradebeam used as a guardrail post 402 may have similar attributes to ahigh-grade beam used as a post for a solar array foundation, and may,for example, be constructed out of a high-grade steel (such as grade 80steel). For example, according to an exemplary embodiment, a guardrailpost 402 may have anode material added, and may have similar ordifferent properties on each of the below-ground and above-groundportions of the guardrail post 402, if desired.

Turning now to exemplary FIG. 5A, FIG. 5A displays a flowchart depictingan exemplary method of installing a solar array 500 a. According to anexemplary embodiment, in a first step 502 a, piles may be loaded into astandard guardrail post driver. In a next step 504 a, the piles may beinstalled in a surface using the standard guardrail post driver. In anext step 506 a, a solar array rack may be coupled to the tops of thepiles (or elsewhere on the piles).

Turning now to exemplary FIG. 5B, FIG. 5B displays a flowchart depictingan exemplary method of replacing a module of a solar array 500 b.According to an exemplary embodiment, a method of replacing a module ofa solar array 500 b may be made possible by constructing the frame ofthe solar array to have a longer lifespan than the solar panels or solarmodule supported by the frame. (It may be understood that, in someexemplary embodiments, photovoltaic solar panels may degrade byapproximately 1% of maximum capacity for every year of use, and thatpanels may be considered to have a lifespan of approximately 25 years,at which time they may produce around 80% of rated power. Otherembodiments are of course possible.)

In some exemplary embodiments, a method of replacing a module of a solararray 500 b may be facilitated by, for example, making use of a heaviergalvanized steel, such as 80 ksi steel galvanized as per ASTM A123, inthe frame of the solar array or in elements of the frame of the solararray such as a foundation post, which may increase the lifespan of theframe to the point where it may last multiple lengths of the lifespan ofthe solar module and make replacement of the solar module worthwhile.According to an exemplary embodiment, a solar array may be constructedso that a solar module can be readily removed from the frame of thesolar array 502 b. Once the solar module has been removed from the frameof the solar array 502 b, parts may be replaced as necessary, and thewiring may be replaced as necessary 504 b. A new solar module may thenbe put in place of the old solar module and coupled back to the frame ofthe solar array 506 b. This may further reduce the structural costsassociated with solar arrays and may thus further enhance thecompetitiveness of solar arrays as compared to other power sources.

The foregoing description and accompanying figures illustrate theprinciples, preferred embodiments and modes of operation of theinvention. However, the invention should not be construed as beinglimited to the particular embodiments discussed above. Additionalvariations of the embodiments discussed above will be appreciated bythose skilled in the art (for example, features associated with certainconfigurations of the invention may instead be associated with any otherconfigurations of the invention, as desired).

Therefore, the above-described embodiments should be regarded asillustrative rather than restrictive. Accordingly, it should beappreciated that variations to those embodiments can be made by thoseskilled in the art without departing from the scope of the invention asdefined by the following claims.

1. A guardrail system, comprising: a plurality of guardrail piles, eachguardrail pile comprising a hot rolled I-beam having a size of W6, thehot rolled I-beam constructed from at least a grade 60 steel and havinga yield strength of at least 60 ksi; and a guardrail, the guardrailcoupled to an upper portion of each of the plurality of guardrail pilesby a plurality of connectors, and extending outward from each of theplurality of guardrail piles in a direction perpendicular to a heightdirection of each of the plurality of guardrail piles.
 2. The guardrailsystem of claim 1, wherein each hot rolled I-beam is constructed from atleast a grade 80 steel, and wherein each hot rolled I-beam has a yieldstrength of at least 80 ksi.
 3. The guardrail system of claim 1, whereineach of the plurality of guardrail piles has a size selected from arange of W6×7 to W6×25.
 4. The guardrail system of claim 3, wherein eachof the plurality of guardrail piles has a size selected from a range ofW6×8.5 to W6×9.
 5. The guardrail system of claim 1, wherein each of theplurality of guardrail piles further comprises a protective layercomprising at least one of a hot dip galvanic coating or a protectiveepoxy layer.
 6. The guardrail system of claim 1, wherein each of theplurality of guardrail piles is devoid of a protective layer.
 7. Amethod of installing a guardrail, the method comprising: installing aplurality of guardrail piles in soil, each guardrail pile comprising ahot rolled I-beam having a size of W6, the hot rolled I-beam constructedfrom at least a grade 60 steel and having a yield strength of at least60 ksi; and coupling a guardrail to each of the plurality of guardrailpiles using a plurality of connectors.
 8. The method of claim 7, whereinthe step of installing a plurality of guardrail piles in soil comprisesdriving the plurality of guardrail piles with a guardrail post drivingapparatus.
 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the guardrail post driveris a hydraulic-type pile driver.
 10. The method of claim 7, wherein eachhot rolled I-beam is constructed from at least a grade 80 steel, andwherein each hot rolled I-beam has a yield strength of at least 80 ksi.11. The method of claim 7, wherein each of the plurality of guardrailpiles has a size selected from a range of W6×7 to W6×25.
 12. The methodof claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of guardrail piles has a sizeselected from a range of W6×8.5 to W6×9.
 13. The method of claim 7,wherein each of the plurality of guardrail piles further comprises aprotective layer comprising at least one of a hot dip galvanic coatingor a protective epoxy layer.
 14. The method of claim 7, wherein each ofthe plurality of guardrail piles is devoid of a protective layer.